JUDGMENT :

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.

Re: I.A. No. 9683 of 2018

1. Heard Smt. Binita Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar and Shri P.K. Shahi, learned senior counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

2. The appeal is reported to be delayed by 140 days.

3. We have considered the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and we find that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to be within time.

4. I.A. No. 9683 of 2018 stands allowed accordingly.

Re: I.A. No. 9682 of 2018

This is an application for stay of the impugned order dated 3rd of July, 2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1641 of 2016.

2. Since we are disposing of the appeal itself today, this application also stands disposed of.

Re: L.P.A. No. 1786 of 2018

This appeal questions the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 3rd of July, 2018 in C.W.J.C. No. 1641 of 2016, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition of the respondent-petitioner and has quashed the order dated 1st of October, 2015, whereby the punishment order was imposed on the respondent-petitioner.

2. The facts in detail have already been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. In brief, the respondent-petitioner was proceeded against in departmental proceedings for unauthorized absence and ultimately the proceedings which were initiated on 31st October, 2002 culminated in the passing of the punishment order. In between, litigation had taken place with regard to which reference has been made in the pleadings of the writ petition, but the same is not necessary for the present controversy keeping in view the submissions advanced.

3. The defence taken by the respondent-petitioner in the writ petition was that she had already tendered an application for voluntary retirement on 1st of September, 2000 and, therefore, the said application for voluntary retirement entitled her to be treated as a retired Government servant in respect of whom no disciplinary proceedings could have been either initiated nor any punishment awarded. Thus, the fulcrum of the defence and the point for consideration keeping in view the bone of contention between the parties was founded on this defence of the respondent-petitioner as to whether having voluntary retired from service could she have been proceeded against in the disciplinary proceedings. The said contention has been accepted by the learned Single Judge holding that the voluntary retirement application stood accepted in law and, therefore, the respondent-petitioner having retired from service, the action taken by the appellants was not in conformity with the rules.

4. The question as to whether the voluntary retirement application was in order or not has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant relying on Rule 74 (b)(i) of the General Conditions of Service contained in Bihar Service Code.

The same is extracted herein-under:-

“74(b)(i) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice, in writing, to the appointing authority concerned retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice:

Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government.

Provided further that in case of the officers and servants of the Patna High Court (including those of Circuit Bench at Ranchi) under the rule making authority of the Chief Justice, no such officer and servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the Chief Justice.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the application which has been moved by the respondent-petitioner and is Annexure-9 to the writ petition is an ap